Citation: R v Giang [2025] NSWDC 362
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 September 2025
Judge(s): Colefax SC DCJ
Background
The offender and his wife had migrated from Vietnam to Australia in late 2019 on a carer visa to assist his seriously ill sister and her autistic child. The marriage deteriorated, and in June 2022 the wife left the family home and moved with the couple's two children to a women's refuge. She then made police complaints alleging serious domestic violence, which led to an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO) and criminal charges against the offender in the Local Court.
On 9 September 2022, the offender located his wife near the refuge as she was returning from walking their son to school. He had conducted prior surveillance of both the refuge and the school. He confronted her while brandishing a bottle he claimed contained acid, forcibly pushed her into his car, bound her wrists with a cable tie, and drove her to a remote, isolated location over a journey of approximately one to one and a half hours.
At that isolated location, the offender coerced his wife to make recorded statements: one retracting the police allegations against him, one purportedly consenting to him having custody of their son, and one apologising to his sister. He also recorded a statement earlier in the vehicle designed to provide cover for the ADVO breach. A jury convicted him on two counts following a trial in March 2025.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for aggravated detention without consent (in a domestic violence context), contrary to s 86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), where actual bodily harm was inflicted?
- What sentence was appropriate for doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice, contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)?
- How should the principles of general and specific deterrence, community protection, and rehabilitation be balanced in the context of serious domestic violence offending?
- Whether special circumstances warranted a non-parole period shorter than the statutory default of one-third of the head sentence.
- How the totality principle applied to the concurrent sentences.
Decision
Colefax SC DCJ accepted the jury's verdicts and found, beyond reasonable doubt, a detailed factual basis for both offences. The judge found the offender had intentionally located and surveilled his separated wife in the weeks before the offence, confirming the confrontation was premeditated. The binding of her wrists, the threat involving the bottle, the coerced recordings, and the isolation of the victim at a remote location were all established as facts.
On Count 1 (aggravated detention), the maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. The judge found the offending was serious domestic violence conduct, involving premeditation, physical harm, threats, and coercion in circumstances designed to exploit the victim's vulnerability and undermine ongoing legal proceedings.
On Count 3 (perverting the course of justice), the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. The conduct involved recording coerced statements retracting the wife's police allegations and fabricating consent to the meeting, directly targeting the Local Court proceedings.
The judge addressed the principles in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa, which can reduce the weight given to general and specific deterrence where an offender has limited insight due to psychological or other factors. However, the need to protect the community remained fully engaged. The judge also applied Yaman v R, emphasising that courts must vindicate the rights of women subjected to domestic violence through punitive and strongly deterrent sentences where necessary. The judge found the offender's prospects of rehabilitation were "at best extremely guarded," noting he had not engaged with available psychological services in custody. Special circumstances were found, however, because the offender's limited English and diagnosed psychological conditions made imprisonment harder for him than for most offenders.
Orders Made
- Count 1: Term of imprisonment of 8 years, backdated to 9 September 2022, with a non-parole period of 5 years (parole eligibility from 8 September 2027) and a balance of term of 3 years expiring 8 September 2030.
- Count 3: Fixed term of imprisonment of 4 years, running concurrently with Count 1, backdated to 9 September 2022 and expiring 8 September 2026.
- The report of Dr Dilati (Exhibit 1) ordered to accompany the warrant.
Key Takeaways
- In dismissing any weight that might attach to rehabilitation prospects, the District Court found that an offender's failure to engage with available psychological services in custody could significantly diminish the rehabilitation consideration in sentencing.
- Serious domestic violence offending involving premeditation, physical restraint, threats, and coercion to undermine court proceedings attracted a substantial head sentence of 8 years for the aggravated detention count alone, reflecting the maximum penalty of 20 years under s 86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
- Under the De La Rosa principles, general and specific deterrence may be reduced where psychological factors limit an offender's capacity for insight, but community protection retains full weight as an independent sentencing consideration.
- The principle from Yaman v R was applied directly: courts must vindicate women's rights through punitive and strongly deterrent sentences in domestic violence cases, even where other sentencing factors are partially moderated.
- Special circumstances justifying a reduced non-parole period can arise from the combined effect of language barriers and psychological conditions that make the experience of custody particularly burdensome for an individual offender.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 86(2)(b) (detaining with intent to obtain advantage, with actual bodily harm)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319 (doing act with intent to pervert course of justice)
Cases:
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Yaman v R [2020] NSWCCA 239